An Application of Formal Argumentation: Fusing Bayes Nets in MAS

Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications

Volumn 144, Issue , 2006, Pages 33-44

  Nielsen, Søren Holbech ^a   Parsons, Simon ^b  

^a AALBORG UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Bayesian networks; Compromises

Indexed keywords

INTELLIGENT AGENTS; MULTI AGENT SYSTEMS;

ARGUMENTATION; BAYES NET; BAYESIA N NETWORKS; BAYESIAN NETWORK MODELS; COMPLEX TASK; COMPROMIZE; FORMAL ARGUMENTATION; REASONING MECHANISM; SPECIFIC STATE; STATE-SPACE;

BAYESIAN NETWORKS;

EID: 38549127790     PISSN: 09226389     EISSN: 18798314     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. S. Saha and S. Sen. A Bayes net approach to argumentation based negotiation. In ArgMAS 1, pages 208-222. Springer, 2004.
2. G. Vreeswijk. Bayesian inference and defeasible reasoning: suggestions for a unified framework. Working paper?, 1999.
3. G. Vreeswijk. Argumentation in Bayesian belief networks. In ArgMAS 1, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 111-129. Springer, 2004.
4. I. Matzkevich and B. Abramson. The topological fusion of bayes nets. In UAI 8, pages 191-198. Morgan Kaufmann, 1992.
5. J. Del Sagrado and S. Moral. Qualitative combination of bayesian networks. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 18(2):237-249, 2003.
6. M. R. and P. Domingos. Learning with knowledge from multiple experts. In ICML 20, pages 624-631. AAAI Press, 2003.
7. P. M-R. II and U. Chajewska. Aggregating learned probabilistic beliefs. In UAI 17, pages 354-361. Morgan Kaufmann, 2001.
8. S. H. Nielsen and S. Parsons. Fusing Bayesian networks using formal argumentation in multiagent systems. Technical report, Aalborg University, 2006. http://www.cs.auc.dk/holbech/-tr0106NielsenParsons06.ps.
9. T. Verma and J. Pearl. Equivalence and synthesis of causal models. In UAI 6, pages 220-227. Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc., 1990.
10. S. A. Andersson, D. Madigan, and M. D. Perlman. A characterization of Markov equivalence classes for acyclic digraphs. Annals of Statistics, 25(2):505-541, 1997.
11. H. Prakken and G. Vreeswijk. Logics for defeasible argumentation. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.
12. S. H. Nielsen and S. Parsons. A generalization of Dung's abstract framework for argumentation. In Proceedings of Third Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-agent Systems. Springer, 2006.
13. P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321-358, 1995.
14. Y. Dimopoulos, B. Nebel, and F. Toni. Preferred arguments are harder to compute than stable extension. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 36-43. Morgan Kaufmann, 1999.
15. S. H. Nielsen and S. Parsons. Computing preferred extensions for argumentation systems with sets of attacking arguments. In COMMA06 Proceedings. 2006.
16. S. Doutre and J. Mengin. Preferred extensions of argumentation frameworks: Query, answering and computation. In Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning, volume 2083, pages 272-288. Springer, 2001.
17. P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning. In UAI 16. Stanford, 2000.
18. P. McBurney and S. Parsons. Chance discovery using dialectical argumentation. InWorkshop on Chance Discovery, JSAI 15. Matsue, 2001.